Politics is the art of the impossible. Yesterday’s sworn enemies become today’s bosom buddies. Ideologies go for a toss! All the past vitriolic comments against one another are glossed over for the time being. Their dharma is simply “the end justifies the means.” As the next general election draws closer, the age of coalition politics is back again and this time, with several surprises!
Recently, India’s National Security Advisor Ajit Doval argued that “A government with a decisive mandate is less vulnerable to the pulls and pressures a coalition faces and, hence, better placed to take tough, non-populist decisions in larger national interest.” This line of argument is not new and finds place in several analysis pieces throughout the history.
The popular perception about coalitions in India is coloured by short-lived governments of V P Singh (1989-90), Chandrashekhar (1990-91), H D Deve Gowda (1996-97) and I K Gujral (1997-98) and the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance’s (UPA) second stint in power (2009-14).
But, one cannot ignore the fact that India has seen three full-term coalition governments between 1999-2014 (also, another between 1991-96 under Narasimha Rao) and majority governments have hardly had stellar records when it comes to checking corruption. Importantly, some of the most disruptive and far-reaching policy leaps the country has seen have been made by coalition governments.
V P Singh championed social engineering in moving ahead with the Mandal Commission recommendations seven years after they were made. The Narasimha Rao government reset Indian economic and foreign policy, ditching frameworks Rao’s own party had followed since Independence. The A B Vajpayee (1999-2004) government pursued disinvestment in earnest at a time when it was a dirty word. And under Manmohan Singh, UPA-I introduced game-changing social legislation. In almost every instance, the government and its leader moved ahead despite criticism not only from the opposition ranks but also from within.
Here are some assumptions against the majority governments:
Assumption 1: That a majority in terms of seats reflects popular endorsement and therefore, has the license to exercise its mandate in the manner it considers appropriate in national interest. It is also assumed that a majority government has national perspective, unlike a coalition one where sub-national or even sub-state and stakeholder group-specific considerations, though aggregated for government formation purposes, remain the primary drivers for decision-making.
Assumption 2: That the only stakeholder group seeking to shape governance agendas and priorities with suspect motives and methods are elected public representatives. This suggests that coalition governments are more vulnerable to corruption, while a majority government, where ideological cohesion is greater and party bonds are thick, is less amenable to it.
Both these assumptions are flawed.
In a first-past-the-post (FPTP) voting system (which India follows), a majority in terms of seats does not necessarily reflect popular will – like the current situation with the North-dominated and North-focussed BJP. This is a known limitation of the FPTP system and the BJP was a ‘beneficiary’ of it in India’s 2014 parliamentary elections – winning over half the seats with only 31 percent of the popular vote. The Congress got less than a tenth of the seats even though it garnered a fifth of the popular vote.
On the contrary, coalition governments can be far more accommodative of various voices, given how dependent government survival can be on keeping partners’ social bases and electoral interests unharmed. Interestingly then, some of the most repressive and autocratic regimes across the globe, both historically and presently, have been majority governments.
Also, political parties, particularly large ones that make it to power on their own, are not monolithic but coalitions of multiple interests themselves and ideological cohesion and party discipline are no assurance against interest-specific lobbying via underhand means.
In fact, majority governments, lacking the added layer of checks and balances that partners present in coalitions, can get deeply mired in corruption. To be accurate, coalition governments can be unclean too but to suggest that majority governments are necessary for corruption-free governance underestimates how pervasive corruption is and how embedded and potent its drivers are.
For instance, the autocratic behaviour of the current majority government in India – BJP-ruled government – is one of the sole reasons for the formation of Mahaghatbandhan, which has brought the Telugu Desam Party and the Congress – which were historically on the opposite ends of the poles – together.
So, even majority governments are susceptible to brutal majoritarianism and high corruption just like their coalition partners. This time, it is the political necessity that has brought anti-BJP allies together. Therefore, the purpose of coalition partners doesn’t necessarily have to be to come to power but to give keep lax majoritarian government in check!